Allowed

State of Kerala v. Jessy John

Kerala HC10 Nov 2014LA.App./266/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed two land acquisition appeals filed by the State against enhanced market rates awarded to landowners. The High Court distinguished the acquired residential lands from commercially important lands in a prior connected decision, ultimately fixing a lower land value rate for the respondents based on a separate order.

What did the court decide?

Appeals allowed; respondents entitled to land value at the rate of Rs. 1,04,1,257/- per acre.

State of Kerala Vs Jessy John — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶6

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/19TH KARTHIKA, 1936

¶7

LA.App..No. 266 of 2014 ()

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN LAR 99/2011 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 07-10-2013

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA

¶11

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶12

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS DIVISION

¶13

MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶14

BY ADV.SRI.PADMARAJ - GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

SRI.P.C.IYPE, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶16

RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANT:

¶17

JESSY JOHN

¶18

W/O. JOHN KURIAKKOSE, PUTHNPURAYIL, 130 JUNCTION NAS ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA-686661.

¶19

R1 BY ADV. SMT.R.LEELA R1 BY ADV. SMT.SHYNI PELEXY

¶20

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-11-2014, ALONG WITH LAA. 329/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

AL/-

¶22

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &

¶23

P.V.ASHA, JJ.,

¶24

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A. Nos.266/2014 & 329/2014

¶25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶26

Dated this the 10^th day of November 2014

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Ramachandran Nair, J.,

¶29

These appeals arise from the common judgment in L.A.R.Nos. 99/2011 & 8/2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha.

¶30

The extent of land involved in L.A.A. 266/2014 is 4.90 ares viz., dry land in survey No. 380-20 of Marady Village. In L.A.A. No. 329/2014 extent of property involved is 0.41 ares of land in Survey No. 380/6-5 in Marady village.

¶31

In both these appeals, the properties were acquired for the purpose of construction of Ernakulam Thekkady State Highway and Naz road. The Section 4(1) notification is dated 15.3.2008. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at

¶32

the rate of `.2,88,756/- per are. Relying upon the judgment in L.A.R. No.66/11, the land value has been enhanced to

¶33

.5,62,082/- per cent equivalent to .13,88,95/- per are.

¶34

Learned Sr.Government Pleader submitted that reliance

¶35

L.A.A. Nos.266/2014 & 329/2014 :2:

¶36

placed on Ext.A2 judgment is not correct, since the property is not on the side of the M.C. Road and the property acquired herein is only having access by Naz road. It is not a case where the properties are situated either on the side of the M.C. Road or on the Muvattupuzha- Arakkuzha road. The acquisition is for the development of the Naz road for easy access to M.C. Road as well as Muvattupuzha-Arakkuzha road. Therefore, it is submitted that land value awarded by the reference court is on a higher side.

¶37

5.Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the claimants have given evidence by examining witnesses and by taking out a commission. It will show the importance of the acquired properties. It is submitted that the properties are situated in an important place within the heart of the Muvattupuzha town. It is therefore, submitted that the appeals are liable to be dismissed.

¶38

It is true that the claimants have taken out a commission and gave evidence also. We find from the judgment of the reference court that the land value has been fixed based on Ext.A1 judgment also. It is clear that the reference court has relied on Exts.A1 & A2.

¶39

We have by a separate judgment allowed the appeal against the judgment in Ext.A1 viz. L.A.R. No. 18/2010. It is seen that in Ext.A2, the judgment in L.A.R. No. 18/2010 was relied

¶40

L.A.A. Nos.266/2014 & 329/2014 :3:

¶41

upon.

¶42

In the connected appeals, we have adopted the land

¶43

value at the rate of 25% below of the document relied upon as Ext.A1 in L.A.R. No. 18/2010. The said property is just on the opposite side of the K.S.R.T.C. Bus stand, Muvattupuzha viz., on the side of the M.C. Road. The extent of land involved therein was 920 sq.links also. The said property was shown as commercially and industrially important whereas, as far the acquired lands are concerned, they are residential properties. In that view of the matter, we adopt the same value as granted by this Court in L.A.A No.176/2013 and connected cases. Hence the claimants/respondents are entitled for land value at the rate of `.1041,257/- for the acquired property.

¶44

Accordingly, these appeals are allowed to the above extent. The claimants are entitled to all the statutory benefits granted by the reference court. No cost.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

(JUDGE)

Sd/-

P.V.ASHA (JUDGE)

AL/-

True copy

P.A to Judge

:4:

L.A.A. Nos.266/2014 & 329/2014

¶55

The common judgment dated 10.11.2014 in L.A.A.Nos.266/2014 and 329/2014 is corrected as follows vide order dated 16.06/2015 in I.A.616/2015 in L.A.A.266/2014.

¶56

“The figure “ **13,88,95/-”** occurring in the last line of paragraph 3 of the judgment is corrected as **“** 13,88,905 /- and the words “per Are” is added after the words “for the acquired property” in the operative portion of the judgment.

¶57

Sd/Registrar (Judicial)

State of Kerala v. Jessy John

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Jessy John

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suo Mottu Vs Travancore Devaswom Board Secretary

The Executive Engineer, Tdb Vs the Joint Director, Local Fund Audit, Tvm

The Secretary Cochin Devaswom Board, Thrissur Vs the Deputy Director Local Fund Account

Cochin Devaswom Boad Represented by Its Secretary Vs Deputy Director Local Fund Audit Thrissur

The Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director

Suo Motu Vs Travancore Devaswom Board